Friday, February 20, 2015

A TRAGIC AND EXPENSIVE CONFUSION HITTING LENR

PRE-SCIENCE IS NOT PSEUDO-SCIENCE

MOTTO"The Devil is in the details. But then, Who is in the great principles"? (Rhetoric Question)Today things have converged and synerged in order to point to a great, evil, damaging confusion having its deep roots in bad thinking. There are surprisingly numerous thinking fallacies in circulation (no problem) but in action too- and this Trouble. A deadly combination of arrogant, hurried, simplistic, binary, meany, myopic, strongly post-logical thinking.How I have understood it? In chronological order- first it came AXIL's answer to Ethan Siegel's paper cited here yesterday- putting his (Siegel's) ideas in a larger context see AXIL DIXIT. For Siegel- a very postlogical nuclear physicist LENR is dangerous pseudo-science. Then Alexander Parkhomov has alluded to the fact that even in Russia the acceptance of LENR is not total, general and ideal yet. A rather strong organization is the "Commission of fight with pseudo-science and falsification of scientific research: http://klnran.ru/. Details difficult to understand for outsiders, we know LENR has not more to do with such skeptics society's. I, for example am waiting for the proper moment to write to an individual I admire, Michael Shermer who leads the SKEPTIC Magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/ and to tell him LENR is not for him. (I met him once, here in Cluj where he has presented his book: about why people believe weird things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Thingstranslated in Romanian.) Michael, you will see, LENR is not weird - it is new and useful!Then, no.3: a comment by a Finnish reader included the true statement that philosophy can contribute to pseudo-science"My taxonomy of thinking modes in research: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.htmlis as old as Cold Fusion, I wrote it inspired by the great Romanian mathematics professor Solomon Marcus and published it in 1990 after the revolution. First it was rejected mainly due to the idea of postlogical thinking that smells of dictatorship.The four modes of thinking refer to researchers- scientists in extended sense but the they are equally true for Sciences too!Pre-logical science is in a primitive development stage, the basics are not discovered and known, the basic measurements are not done or the results are inconstant and contradictory; the unknowns dominate over the knowns, however the experimental part works. (this is the reason to call it a Science, however it is an unfinished science.)Logical science the basics are already known as well as the cause-effect relationship and the science is developing, step-by-step incrementally in a few established directions.Supra-logic science is an area of rapid progress, changes, breakthroughs , paradigm shifts- human creativity at its best.Post-logical science is in a ripe stage, its truths, teachings, principles are official, must be accepted by everybody, become rigid, sometimes as dogmas claim to be prophetic, are considered to be valid outside their real area of temporary validity- and this goes up to bureaucratic, integrationist dictatorial scienceThese are not pure categories, lots of intermediary stages and strange combinations are possible.But back to our problem: High Temperature Super conductivity is a pre-logical or for the sake of clarity- "pre-science" The experimental part works wonderfully but the explanations, theories are third category (explanatory) or second-(prohibitive), till now never predictive- first category ones. New classes of HTSConductors are discovered via Edison style material science ordeals. Besides experimental success, HTSC possesses the other specific virtue of a real science- continuous, measurable progress. Not comparable with the supra-logical sciences- see the magic Moore's Law in IT.

Now let's take LENR, it is also a pre-science despite the experimental problems- if we take them separately- for the entire range of experiments the situation is better, so we can convince ourselves that LENR is a Pre-Science not a Pseudo-Science.And just now we have the greatest opportunity in the history of the field to create the so necessary experimental certainty- so our LENR should rise to the status of HTSC, with the Lugano-Parkhomov type replications.DAILY INFOAxil has also publishedTinkering with the weak and strong force in LENR: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/20/tinkering-with-the-weak-and-strong-force-in-lenr-axil-axil/An Australian short paper about LENR+:http://weekendworkshops.com.au/profiles/blogs/new-safe-nuclear-like-process-exhibits-excess-energy-releaseFirst news from the new Swedish LENR company NEOFIRE - the CEO, Peter Bjorkom is unfortunately ill, flue with high fever, after his recovery we will discuss starting on an excellent basis- he knows my blog and is aware of my LENR vs. LENR+ idea. Let's wish him fast recoveryAndrea Rossi says interesting things here:

Bernie Koppenhofer:We re studying the theoretical issues deriving from the report, that obviously is correct.

We are making intense theoretical work on the results and we are making a reconciliation, but so far we are not ready to give further information about this issue, which is also bound to restricted data.Warm RegardsA.R.

Mark Saker:Yes, electric power generation is one of the main R&D fields we are going through. We are oriented toward the classic Carnot Cycle, even if we are totally open to new commercial breakthroughs related to other systems.Warm Regards,A.R.

This, in my opinion is an open ended statement- it does not say anything about the real achievements. But, with Rossi, you never know.. exactly.

One of the most consequential mechanisms of quantum mechanics is the entanglement of the quantum properties among particles. This mysterious effect allows two or more particles to behave as one, no matter how far apart they are.

This phenomenon could be responsible for many significant aspects of our lives such as the forward flow of time, thermodynamics and how everyday objects acquire mass, yourself included, and could finally explain why the fundamental particles of matter have the mass they do. -

Oftentimes, the interaction between two electrons causes their individual properties, such as spin, to become "entangled". If you then change the spin of one particle it will instantly affect the spin of the other, regardless of the distance between them.

More than 50 years ago, the first hint of Higgs was inspired by the study of superconductors - a special class of metals that, when cooled to very low temperatures, allow electrons to move without resistance.

About a decade ago, a theory of entanglement of electrons was offered to explain one of the defining traits of superconductivity: the Meissner effect. This quintessential property of superconductivity will levitate a magnet above a piece of superconducting material. The magnetic field emanating from the magnet induces a current in the surface of the superconductor, and this current effectively excludes the magnetic field from the interior of the superconducting material, causing the magnet to hover in the air.

The key concept that has been explored here is “exclusion of the force carrier”. When entanglement excludes the force carrier, then the nature of the interaction of the particle with the force carrier that participle is associated with is changed.

Physicists believe that the source of this mass is something called the Higgs field that fills the universe and is mediated by a particle known as the Higgs boson. These bosons are thought to exist in a "condensed" state that excludes the mediator particles such as gluons in the same way that a superconductor's entangled electrons exclude the photons of a magnetic field.

A Bose Condensate is always associated with a type of boson or in other words “a force Carrier”. The Higgs field is comprised of Higgs bosons that are entangled and condensed. That Higgs field excludes photons in varying degrees based on the myriad types of particles that is producing those force carriers. This Higgs field interacts with the force carriers of the strong force and the weak force as well as the electromagnetic force. This degree of exclusion defines the mass of the particle.

This exclusion by the Higgs field is what gives the mediator particles an effective mass, and also limits their range of influence. But no one understands how the Higgs field excludes, say, gluons.

Entanglement could be the answer. Entanglement could be how the condensation of the Higgs bosons and exclusion of the mediators requires entanglement between the Higgs bosons. Entanglement may be linked to the mass of not just the mediator particles, but all fundamental particles. Different particles would interact differently with the entangled Higgs bosons, providing different "effective masses" for each particle.

The entanglement of the polariton a hybrid of light and matter in the form of a soliton and its projection of entanglement might be another analogous mechanism that excludes the force carriers of both the weak and strong force.

This mechanism of entangled exclusion of force carriers could be the chief mover of how low energy nano reactions work.

The Higgs Mode in Disordered SuperconductorsClose to a Quantum Phase Transition

Through the use of 2 dimensional topological superconductors, the Higgs field is detected using a Quantum Phase transition in a condensed matter system.

The study of the properties of disordered superconductors is a subject of ongoing intense activity, mostly because it is viewed as being one of the few physical systems that can be tuned through a two dimensional quantum critical point, which is not mean-field-like. The softening of the Higgs mode is a direct proof that the superconductor-insulator transition (SIT) is a quantum critical point in which a diverging timescale is detected. Evidently, the vicinity to the Quantum Phase Transition (QPT) offers a unique opportunity to study the nature of the low energy collective excitations in superconductors. Going beyond disordered superconductors, this finding can play a role in tracing collective excitations in other quantum critical condensed matter systems and might influence and inform related fields such as Bose-condensed ultracold atoms, quantum statistical mechanics and high energy physics.

OTHER

Sex redefined. The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that:

4 comments:

Why is it so hard for today's science to understand how the collective action of electrons can affect the nature of the weak and strong forces inside the nucleus.

The mechanism of superconductivity gives us a clue. Both Its theory and it behavior inspired Higgs among others to solve the mass problem in particle physics. But amazingly, we have been shown in a recent superconductor experiment that we do not need a large particle accelerator to see the Higgs field at work though a Quantum Phase Transition. A condensed matter superconducting system configured with the appropriate crystal structure will reveal the Higgs field in action. Superconductivity shows that mass is just the shielding of force carriers.

If a crystal structure can produce mass, why cannot a crystal structure and its attendant electron dance produce nuclear rearrangement so that one or more nuclei can achieve a lower energy level by converting mass to energy? Neutrons are not required when the forces of nature are being directly manipulated inside every level of the nuclear hierarchy by the proper electron dance. After all since mass and energy are the same thing, both the production of mass and energy are caused by the exclusion of the various force carriers from their attendant subatomic particles.

I like the concept of shielding forces because I have never been able to wrap my head around the idea that a force of any kind can make particles attract, because in my mind all forces must be direct by pushing or indirect by shielding other pushing forces. I understand Bosons as a stream of particles so many that you can not see them as individuals but by statistics and probability. I am not a physicist but have spent some time reading and thinking about this. What I say here might be obvious for the professionals and if so, your discussions run much deeper where I am lost. Or the professionals truly believe in attracting direct forces. I would be pleased to know which, do you know Axil (or any other who have an answer)? Mats002